Reason for method selection

3.4. Service blueprint for organizational process visualization

3.4.1. Reason for method selection

In order to choose a method for visualization of organizational processes with the stress on communication and collaboration, a set of service design methods needs to be analyzed accordingly. As mentioned in the previous chapter, service design method categorization by Tassi is utilized in this research due to its deep level of sub-grouping.

The criteria for a service design method that would concentrate on

communication and collaboration during the internal process of a company are seen in Table 7. Representation type of graph is the most natural way to visualize a process. Interaction content shows the aspects of communication and

collaboration between the stakeholders. System content has importance if the visualization has to show the technical aspects of the process. Implementing stage of the design activity allows choosing from a range of methods that communicate the idea to the audience and would support further actions. And recipients category of service staff would be the suitable one for the internal company use, however this category includes only one method for the process visualization. Offering map method was not selected as a potential method in any previous category, therefore a recipient group of stakeholders was analyzed.

35

Table 7. Visualization service design methods organized in suitability order and by the selection criteria.

1. ^{Blueprint Blueprint} Touchpoints

matrix

Storyboard System map Task analysis grid

Table 7 presents the service design methods that could be potentially used in the company, according to their purpose. Indeed, the purpose of using several criteria was to identify one service design method that would meet all of the criteria. To succeed in this task the methods had to be organized in suitability order. It was done so that one selection criterion was analyzed at a time.

Familiarization was done with each method that was suggested on the website under the picked criterion, and only the most suitable ones were included into Table 7. In total, there are nine methods in Table 7. Each of the service design method is shortly presented further to provide the reader some understanding about the presented options for visualization methods.

Blueprint, also known as service blueprint, represents several layers of actions and stakeholders that are involved with the service. Touchpoints matrix

represents a customer path in the service with the focus on the technical aspects [16]. Customer journey map is a service design method that visualizes on a customer path within the service by marking customer’s interactions with the service [16]. Actors map provides an organized view of actors and their

36

relationships [16]. This method allows having an organized picture of the service environment [16]. System map is similar with actors map, however it

concentrates on the technical aspects associated with the technical aspect of the service [16]. Storyboard is a set of use cases shown as drawings or images [16].

These images are place in a sequence to explain the service as a story [16].

Evidencing is a method to produce images to discover how a certain touchpoint of a service would function [16]. Service prototype is a method to test the service with a real user in a real situation to get feedback [16]. Task analysis grid is a method to represent tasks or requirements of the service with sub-tasks related to each of the description [16].

As seen in Table 7, blueprint method suited all of the categories, except system content. Moreover, it has been the top choice for most of the columns. And touchpoint matrix met all criteria, except use in implementing activity, being mostly the second option for various criteria.

The two top choices had to be compared visually and from the perspective of improving communication and collaboration of internal stakeholder in a growing IT organization. Tassi provided definitions for both methods, which also helped with the choice of the method. Service blueprint is a description of interactions that provide the service [16]. Touchpoints matrix is a combination of customer journey maps and system maps, which focuses on the personas [16; 17]. The difference between the two methods is that service blueprint focuses more on revealing the layers of the service provider where collaboration happens. And touchpoints matrix has more focus on the customer actions and its touchpoints.

Touchpoint, in touchpoints matrix, is a connection with a physical or digital matter that happens during user experience [17]. For this empirical study, the visualization of the internal stakeholders has priority over customer experience, thus service blueprint is chosen as the visualization methods for this case.

In addition, the evaluation of 17 visualization methods by Segelström and Holmlid was viewed to receive a broader perspective about the method in question [17].

37

Based on the evaluation, the majority of methods were strongly representing customer orientation and relationships between stakeholders [17]. Service blueprint was perceived to be strong in heterogeneity and goods as distribution mechanism [17], which are important characteristics for communication

purposes in a diverse group of stakeholders. Alternatively, customer journey was rated strong not only on these two traits but in all traits evaluated in the research [17]. The research included such traits as intangibility, heterogeneity,

inseparability, perishability, goods as distribution mechanism, co-production of service, value in use, customer orientation, relationships [17]. Storyboard was also strong in all traits, except relationship element [17].

Visual comparison of the methods revealed that service blueprint provides profound visibility on the company internal processes rather than customer journey. Also, the creation of a meaningful customer journey would require proper customer involvement in the design process. However, the focus of this research is primarily on communication and collaboration of internal

stakeholders and service blueprint seems to fully support the goals of this research.